Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What most prolife people fail to remember, is that abortion was illegal in this country at one point in time.
This caused women to die, from back alley abortions. This caused many children to be treated badly, by parents who didn't want them, and couldn't care for them.
Did you know that in the years, after the children born after abortion was legalized, that crime rates fell, among children. That rate continued to fall, through the 80's and 90's after those children reached adulthood. Thats because the parents that wanted children had them. The parents that didn't want children, didn't. That caused for greater parenting to take place, which caused the crime rate to fall.
The simple matter is this. When abortions aren't legal, some women will still have them. That can cause them to die in the process. Also, when they are forced to have the children, the children grow up in neglected households, and grow up to be dregs on society, that doesn't want them either.
For those reasons alone, abortion should stay legal, everywhere.
So? Doesn't make it right. The truth is that there is no such thing as "prolife". It is anti freedom, anti privacy and so many other things.
The last thing the liars and hypocrites on the "prolife" side are pro life.
Actually, it is pro life because it wishes to extend the freedoms of choice to the child, which in all reasonable means it should.
Something you dismiss when you only consider one side. Freedom comes with the responsibility of respect the rights of others, even when you attempt to dehumanize them in order to avoid recognizing them.
Didn't they treat slaves as property in an attempt to avoid being able to recognize the rights affirmed by our constitution?
I see no difference in method to avoid recognizing such in and how it concerns a fetus. /shrug
Actually, it is pro life because it wishes to extend the freedoms of choice to the child, which in all reasonable means it should.
Something you dismiss when you only consider one side. Freedom comes with the responsibility of respect the rights of others, even when you attempt to dehumanize them in order to avoid recognizing them.
Didn't they treat slaves as property in an attempt to avoid being able to recognize the rights affirmed by our constitution?
I see no difference in method to avoid recognizing such in and how it concerns a fetus. /shrug
I disagree. It is anti freedom. No doubt about in my head. Abortion should always stay legal, safe and rare.
I do not consider only one side. I consider the anti freedom side too. Dehumanize what? Recognize what?
Comparing apples and oranges. The difference is that slaves were born and here PHYSICALLY and could rely on themselves for food and whatnot. Fetuses leech off their host.
And for the record, I am against abortion after 3 months. After that I would be for it if the fetus is dead or if there is severe danger to the mother or fetus.
The first three months? Pro choice, no questions asked. Abortion on request when it is asked for.
I disagree. It is anti freedom. No doubt about in my head. Abortion should always stay legal, safe and rare.
I do not consider only one side. I consider the anti freedom side too. Dehumanize what? Recognize what?
Comparing apples and oranges. The difference is that slaves were born and here PHYSICALLY and could rely on themselves for food and whatnot. Fetuses leech off their host.
And for the record, I am against abortion after 3 months. After that I would be for it if the fetus is dead or if there is severe danger to the mother or fetus.
The first three months? Pro choice, no questions asked. Abortion on request when it is asked for.
You create a standard to what you define as human and what you do not. You define life based on a strict set of principals of your own liking. Biologically, life is determined at conception, your unwillingness to accept such in the progress of development is a semantics issue that serves to place boundaries and levels to which you find acceptable.
This is no different than those who rationalize the killing of others. The question remains, is it justified? Obviously, one may kill another in their attempt to protect themselves. The action of such is reasonably justified, kill or be killed.
I could even understand the rationalization of facing death to the carrying of a child to birth (though I may disagree personally, I completely understand the process of self survival instinct), yet these are not common reasons for abortion. The reasons given are insignificant, immature, self centered and most due to the irresponsible nature to which the person making the decision has made.
A life is a life, and we are not animals serving instinct. We have a higher understanding and respect for species. If we were simply animals following instinct, I might understand, but I simply see this issue as nothing more than convenience to serve a purpose rather than a construct of any principal. It is easy to pull the trigger on something we dehumanize, something we categorize as a blob for our own self serving needs, but it does not change the fact of our actions.
It is no more different than deciding the extermination of those we do not know or have any attachment to. If we keep convincing ourselves that it is nothing significant, simply a blob, taking out the garbage, we take comfort in such ignorance. None the less, it is ignorance, it is no different than killing that of a human child to which you can see, touch, smell, and hear. Yet it is the chosen ignorance of their existence to serve a self interest to which drives people to promote such. Its just a blob, not human, its taking our the garbage.
In reality, however small, or insignificant to you, it is a life, a life created and then extinguished to often serve petty desires of self interest.
I understand the decisions made concerning hard issues, these are always the contention to which many may argue and I can respect their arguments, but abortion outside of those areas are not reasonable, they are simply the act of killing to make ones own irresponsible choices easier.
Well you anti-choice people won. I hope to see those that supported this bill step up to the plate and invest time and money in the care of these children. I also hope some of you realize women who have an unfavorable amniocentesis result may not have results before the cut-off date, someone is going to have to pay for a child with special needs. Get your check books out.
I'm still patiently waiting for anyone to post a reputable link to any data that contradicts what I previously posted about fetal pain. I have seen nothing but conjecture about this new revelation that fetal pain is felt at 20 weeks. It would seem no one except for those who wrote the bill have seen the data. If this data is so grounbreaking, and irrefutable, then why has it not been presented for review by peers in the field?
Well you anti-choice people won. I hope to see those that supported this bill step up to the plate and invest time and money in the care of these children. I also hope some of you realize women who have an unfavorable amniocentesis result may not have results before the cut-off date, someone is going to have to pay for a child with special needs. Get your check books out.
I'm still patiently waiting for anyone to post a reputable link to any data that contradicts what I previously posted about fetal pain. I have seen nothing but conjecture about this new revelation that fetal pain is felt at 20 weeks. It would seem no one except for those who wrote the bill have seen the data. If this data is so grounbreaking, and irrefutable, then why has it not been presented for review by peers in the filed?
What is disturbing is using the argument that someone will be irresponsible and create a dependent as reasoning to simply kill them. This is disturbing.
Why stop there though? Why not simply round up those who can not support themselves, those who require need, yet are unable to get it, line them up and plant a bullet in their head? It solves all the problems doesn't it?
That is the argument made, the rest is arguing over semantics and self serving sensitivity that allows someone to rationalize pulling the trigger.
As for pain, I honestly do not care about such. Pain or no pain, it is another semantics argument to justify ones guilt in killing someone.
What is disturbing is using the argument that someone will be irresponsible and create a dependent as reasoning to simply kill them. This is disturbing.
Why stop there though? Why not simply round up those who can not support themselves, those who require need, yet are unable to get it, line them up and plant a bullet in their head? It solves all the problems doesn't it?
That is the argument made, the rest is arguing over semantics and self serving sensitivity that allows someone to rationalize pulling the trigger.
As for pain, I honestly do not care about such. Pain or no pain, it is another semantics argument to justify ones guilt in killing someone.
You are trying to use your rationalization to understand my position, which could not be more polar opposite. My primary concern in abortion is the plight of the child. If a pregnant woman knows she does not want the child, or is not going to be able to care for the child, she should have access to a safe abortion as early as possible. You can bring up any other group you choose, Jews in Germany, the homeless, the chronically ill, knock yourself out. They are irrelevant to this decision.
Of course pain is relevant. Only psychopaths enjoy inflicting pain on others. Most rational people do not enjoy inflicting pain. There is no consensus on fetal pain. And for the record the fetus is anesthetized in a late-term abortion.
So by attacking my position, I assume you are saying you are all talk, and are not going to do one solitary thing to help children in need who are now going to be brought to term under this bill?
What is disturbing is using the argument that someone will be irresponsible and create a dependent as reasoning to simply kill them. This is disturbing.
Why stop there though? Why not simply round up those who can not support themselves, those who require need, yet are unable to get it, line them up and plant a bullet in their head? It solves all the problems doesn't it?
That is the argument made, the rest is arguing over semantics and self serving sensitivity that allows someone to rationalize pulling the trigger.
As for pain, I honestly do not care about such. Pain or no pain, it is another semantics argument to justify ones guilt in killing someone.
Your last two posts were awesome. I couldn't have said it like that, but I'm glad you did!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
